Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Piney Forest Health And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Facility staff did not label or date multiple food items and juice pitchers stored in the walk-in and prep coolers, as observed by surveyors. Items including cut produce, cheese, and lunchmeat were found together in a container with fluid, and none were labeled or dated. The dining services manager confirmed these items should have been labeled and stored separately, in accordance with facility policy.
Staff did not promptly implement contact isolation for multiple residents with gastroenteritis symptoms, and a nurse was observed providing care without appropriate PPE. In a separate case, contact precautions for a resident with an ESBL UTI were delayed due to lack of timely communication and awareness among staff, despite facility policy requiring immediate action.
Facility staff did not promptly notify a resident's representative when the resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment, was transferred to the emergency department after reporting a burning sensation during urination. Notification to the representative occurred only after the resident was being discharged back from the hospital, contrary to facility policy requiring timely notification of significant changes in condition.
Staff failed to accurately code the MDS for two residents: one was incorrectly marked as receiving an anticoagulant when only antiplatelet medications were prescribed, and another was not coded for receiving an antidepressant despite active orders and administration. These errors were confirmed through record review and staff interviews.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a high risk for elopement was observed without a required wander bracelet, despite care plan and provider orders mandating its use and regular checks. Staff acknowledged the absence and had not performed the required checks during the shift, resulting in a lapse in the implementation of person-centered safety interventions.
Facility staff did not accurately document a resident's behaviors on the MARs, using checkmarks instead of the required 'Y' or 'N' entries, and failed to record observed behaviors such as yelling and medication refusal on the MARs, despite these being noted in progress notes. This resulted in incomplete and inaccurate clinical records for the resident.
Failure to Label and Date Food Items in Coolers
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to store food items in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. During an inspection of the walk-in cooler, a white storage container was found containing a cut cucumber, cut onions, sandwich cheese, and lunchmeat (ham and turkey), all wrapped in plastic or stored in bags, and all saturated with a clear fluid from the lunchmeat. None of these items were labeled or dated. The dining services manager confirmed that each item should have been labeled and dated, and that the items should have been stored separately to prevent cross-contamination. The manager was unable to confirm how long the ham had been opened or thawing, and acknowledged the failure to follow proper storage procedures. In a separate observation, nine pitchers of juice (cranberry, orange, and apple) were found in the reach-in/prep cooler, none of which were labeled or dated. The dining services manager again confirmed that each pitcher should have been labeled and dated. Facility policy requires all refrigerated food items to be stored in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged to prevent cross-contamination, but these procedures were not followed as observed by the surveyor.
Failure to Implement Timely Infection Control Precautions for Gastroenteritis and ESBL Infections
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to follow infection control guidelines for 19 residents experiencing gastroenteritis symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Despite the facility's own policies requiring prompt implementation of contact isolation and the posting of appropriate signage, staff did not place these residents on contact isolation until after the surveyors' arrival. Observations revealed that, although symptoms began for some residents the previous day, no contact isolation signs were posted outside their rooms until later in the afternoon. The facility's Infection Preventionist confirmed that the required signage and precautions were not in place as per policy. Additionally, a registered nurse was observed providing care to a resident with active gastroenteritis symptoms without wearing the required gown, despite facility policy and the presence of contact isolation signage. The nurse acknowledged that a gown should have been worn during care, and the Infection Preventionist confirmed this requirement. The resident involved was assessed as having intact or borderline cognition and was receiving IV fluids for their symptoms at the time of the observation. In a separate incident, staff failed to promptly implement contact precautions for a resident with a confirmed ESBL (extended-spectrum beta-lactamase) urinary tract infection. Although the resident's medical record and provider orders indicated the presence of ESBL and the need for contact precautions, the Infection Preventionist was unaware of the positive result until several days after the diagnosis. The facility's policy required immediate identification and implementation of contact precautions for ESBL infections, but this was not done until after the delay was identified.
Failure to Promptly Notify Resident Representative of Emergency Transfer
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to promptly notify a resident's representative of a significant change in condition that resulted in the resident being transferred to the emergency department. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment as indicated by a BIMS score of 10 out of 15, was able to make herself understood and understand others. On the evening in question, the resident complained of a burning sensation during urination and requested to be sent to the emergency department. Documentation shows the resident was transferred to the emergency department within an hour of the complaint. However, there was no documentation that the resident's representative was notified at the time of transfer. The representative was only notified several hours later, after the emergency department had already informed the facility that the resident was being discharged back. Facility policy required responsible party notification in the event of a significant change in condition, but this was not followed in this instance.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Medications
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure accurate completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two residents. For one resident with peripheral vascular disease, the MDS was incorrectly coded to indicate the use of an anticoagulant, despite the resident only receiving antiplatelet medications such as aspirin and clopidogrel. The clinical record and physician's orders did not list any anticoagulant medications, and the Resident Assessment Instrument manual specifies that antiplatelet medications should not be coded as anticoagulants. This error was confirmed by the regional MDS coordinator during an interview. For another resident with multiple diagnoses including major depressive disorder, the quarterly MDS assessment failed to indicate that the resident was receiving an antidepressant medication, even though the medication administration record and provider orders showed the resident was prescribed and receiving mirtazapine. The omission was acknowledged by the regional director of MDS after reviewing the relevant records. Both deficiencies were discussed with facility leadership during the survey process.
Failure to Ensure Required Wander Bracelet Placement for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that a wander bracelet was in place for one resident who was identified as high risk for elopement. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including severe cognitive impairment as indicated by a BIMS score of 6 out of 15, and was assessed as high risk for elopement based on the facility's Elopement Risk Tool. The resident's care plan and provider orders required that a wander bracelet be worn on the right ankle and checked every shift, with additional weekly function checks. However, during a surveyor's observation, the resident was found in the lobby without a wander bracelet on either ankle, wrists, or personal belongings. Staff present at the time acknowledged the absence of the bracelet and indicated they would provide one. Further review of the resident's clinical record and care plan confirmed the requirement for daily use and regular checks of the wander bracelet. Interviews with staff revealed that the bracelet had not been checked during the current shift, contrary to facility policy and provider orders. The bracelet was later observed to be in place after staff intervention. The facility's policy on elopement/exit-seeking behaviors specified the use of a safety/security system for residents at risk, but this intervention was not implemented as required at the time of the surveyor's initial observation.
Failure to Accurately Document Resident Behaviors on MARs
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate clinical records for one resident by not properly documenting behavior monitoring on the Medication Administration Records (MARs) over several months. The MARs for October 2024, November 2024, and January 2025 required staff to record a 'Y' if behaviors were observed and an 'N' if not, with further documentation in progress notes if behaviors occurred. Instead, staff consistently used checkmarks, which were not defined in the instructions, and did not indicate whether behaviors were observed or not. The Regional Nurse Consultant later explained that a checkmark meant no behaviors were observed, but this was not specified on the MARs themselves. Despite the requirement for accurate behavior documentation, multiple instances of behavioral issues such as yelling, refusing medications, throwing items, and cussing were recorded in the resident's progress notes but were not reflected on the MARs. These discrepancies occurred on several documented occasions, indicating that the MARs did not accurately capture the resident's behaviors as required. The issue was discussed with facility leadership during the survey, highlighting the failure to ensure that clinical records were complete and accurate for the resident in question.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 28 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 1 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Danville
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverside Health & Rehab Cntr | 0.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Roman Eagle Rehabilitation And Health Care Center | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Stratford Healthcare Center | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Yanceyville Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center | 13.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Chatham Health & Rehabilitation Center | 14 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Piney Forest Health And Rehabilitation Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.